Author Topic: I retract my opinions (Read 6942 times)

rlee · « **Reply #15 on:** March 22, 2014, 09:33:31 PM »

Soulgard, read carefully the entire text of the decree that Centroamerica has cited because it will prove that sedevacantism is an error, especially right in the beginning:

"We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world,"[/b]

Sedevacantism is a dangerous error involving the private judgement of those who are not entitled to judge (can you spell P-R-O-T-E-S-T-A-N-T-I-S-M).

Sedevantistism is outside the Catholic Faith and you should challenge anybody who holds it to prove that they are entitled to be the judge with in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Absent such proof consider that Sedevacantism itself is a dangerous heresy for you as a Catholic to avoid.

crossbro · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2014, 05:08:05 AM »

Since your retracted your opinions, you must now realize that you can never be taken seriously again.

I hope you appreciate the fact that I have pointed out to you where things now stand.

Frances · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2014, 10:33:09 AM »

Quote from: crossbro

Since your retracted your opinions, you must now realize that you can never be taken seriously again.

I hope you appreciate the fact that I have pointed out to you where things now stand.

:dancing-banana:
ABL changed his ideas with regard to the Papacy and with what should be the Society's actions regarding the unconverted Vatican. Unless you believe soulguard to speak infallibly, :roll-laugh1: is he not entitled to change his mind? He and his fallible opinions are entitled to respect, same as any others. We are always free to accept or reject his ideas--unless soulguard is now entrusted with the Deposit of Faith!!!!!!!

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #18 on:** March 23, 2014, 10:51:04 AM »

Agreed, Frances.
It's a tricky situation to deal with and the more you learn, the better your judgements.
This is just my opinion but this is the way I understand it...
I'm not a sedevacantist in practice because then, all of Our Lady's prophesies regarding a time of bad popes would not be true. Also, there is practical versus real. Practically he is pope, but in God's reality, he's just a guy in white vestments. Like pope Michael.

crossbro · « **Reply #19 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:05:31 AM »

I would just like to say that I was just joking and regret having made my above comment.

soulguard · « **Reply #20 on:** March 23, 2014, 01:03:42 PM »

I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him. Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.

The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.

Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #21 on:** March 23, 2014, 01:25:20 PM »

Looking forward to your future retraction of your retraction.

Some Protestant denominations differ from Catholicism " . . . only in degrees of belief . . .".

:baby:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #22 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:08:54 PM »

Quote from: crossbro

I would just like to say that I was just joking and regret having made my above comment.

Sounds like a retraction if I ever heard one.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #23 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:16:59 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him. Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.

The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.

Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.

This is amusing that the same errors and heresy that the SSPX is accusing sedevacantists of holding to is actually being used by those who are affirming Francis is the pope unquestionably. Soulguard must not have read much regarding the positions he is changing ever so rapidly.

"The first glimmerings of the Gallican ideas surfaced during the conflict between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII in the 1300’s.[28] In 1681 a General Assembly of the French clergy summoned by Louis XIV, King of France, obtained the “Declaration of the Four Articles,” known as the Four Gallican Propositions, namely that:

The pope may not interfere directly or indirectly with the temporal concerns of princes.

In spiritual matters a General Council is superior to the pope.

The rights and customs of the Gallican church are inviolable.

The Pope is not infallible, even in matters of Faith, unless his decision is confirmed by the consent of the Church.[29]

From the second proposition or ideal came the idea that a pope can be judged by a council and of course if a council can judge the pope then so can individuals because individuals make up the councils. This Gallican proposition is the tap root of sedevacantism:

Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican (I), Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavored to keep it alive under this form.[30]

It is from the roots of the Old Catholics that some of today’s sedevacantist bishops come."

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/is_sedevacantism_catholic_part_3.htm

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #24 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:25:57 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him.

SG, that doesn't make any sense. Whether or not Francis is a valid pope is a matter of fact, and matters of fact are true or false on their own merits. For example, when the Church condemned Luther he did not begin to be a non-Catholic at the moment he was condemned; he was a non-Catholic the moment he began to be a public heretic. The Church's ruling was not what caused Martin Luther to be a non-Catholic, it was Martin Luther's own actions which caused that.

Another way to think about it is that the Church only declares on matters of fact when she judges heretics. In other words, if the Church was ever to judge Francis an anti-pope, it would first have to be true in the order of fact that he was an anti-pope!

Quote

Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.

So what? I know you've got a really weird and nonsensical brand of sedevacantism going on which involves attending the Novus Ordo and relying on Novus Ordo ministers for the sacraments (though hopefully no longer?) but traditional Catholics generally anticipate the Church's judgement on condemning the Novus Ordo and Vatican II-- what's so different about the Vatican II claimants, that we cannot anticipate the Church's judgement on them?

Quote

The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.

I don't really know what you're saying here, but your assertion that the conciliar Church is the Catholic Church (why is Catholic in quotes?) is not supported by the proceeding sentences. Are they supposed to prove your assertion? The fact that there are a few Catholics left who appear to be "in" the Novus Ordo Church does not make the Novus Ordo Church the Catholic Church.

Quote

Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.[/b]

That is a bad analogy. What we are experiencing is heresy and apostasy in practice, discipline and doctrine from the Novus Ordo Church. The Catholic Church is not an apple, prone to producing either good fruit or poison. She cannot give poison at all. The fact that the Novus Ordo Church serves a heavy diet of poison should be convincing enough a reason to conclude that it is not the Catholic Church.

roscoe · « **Reply #25 on:** March 23, 2014, 07:39:57 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: soulguard
I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him. Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.

The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.

Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.

This is amusing that the same errors and heresy that the SSPX is accusing sedevacantists of holding to is actually being used by those who are affirming Francis is the pope unquestionably. Soulguard must not have read much regarding the positions he is changing ever so rapidly.

"The first glimmerings of the Gallican ideas surfaced during the conflict between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII in the 1300’s.[28] In 1681 a General Assembly of the French clergy summoned by Louis XIV, King of France, obtained the “Declaration of the Four Articles,” known as the Four Gallican Propositions, namely that:

The pope may not interfere directly or indirectly with the temporal concerns of princes.

In spiritual matters a General Council is superior to the pope.

The rights and customs of the Gallican church are inviolable.

The Pope is not infallible, even in matters of Faith, unless his decision is confirmed by the consent of the Church.[29]

From the second proposition or ideal came the idea that a pope can be judged by a council and of course if a council can judge the pope then so can individuals because individuals make up the councils. This Gallican proposition is the tap root of sedevacantism:

Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican (I), Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavored to keep it alive under this form.[30]

It is from the roots of the Old Catholics that some of today’s sedevacantist bishops come."

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/is_sedevacantism_catholic_part_3.htm

MO is that Philip IV cannot be accused of 'Gallicanism'. It is nearer the truth to say that Boniface VIII(8?) is the dawn of the 'Reformation' & V2 anti-church.

Throne of the anti-pope(?) in Agnani

hugeman · « **Reply #26 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:05:06 PM »

Soul Guard,
I think someone has stolen your log in and password; these
two postings by you sound so confused and illogical that either
Rostand of Pflugger put them out. Better change your security settings! :roll-laugh2:

When the thieves break into the bank with masks on and guns brandished,
those caught inside charged with protecting the cash (faith) don't
need to take a vote or wait for word from on high to see that the thieves are evil
people and mean them harm-- you either give up ( your faith) or sound the alarm!

You are debating about a riduculous topic. "Just call me Jorge" IS the
pope-- of the universal conciliar church; this is the same church to which
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Meyer REFUSED to belong.
The whole world acclaims him as the pope of that church-- why are you fighting
it? At no time has he ever claimed to be the pope of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church
founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Jorge doesn't even believe
that Jesus Christ founded a Church-- because he believes that
the Jєωιѕн people are the chosen people of God, and that the Jєωιѕн
faith is salvific.He still believes we are in the Old Testament-- and Jesus was just
A good guy!

What do you mean no Catholic Bishops have condemned Montini, Wyjtola, Ratzinger, or Bergoglio? How about Bishops de Castro Meyer, Dolan, Kelly, Santay, Morello, McKenna, Sanborn, Primavera, and the six bishops of the Ukrainain Orthodox Catholic Churvh in Poland who declared
Ratzinger an excommunicant?? Your judgement is better than all these bishops ? You're waiting for what, deMallerais or DeGalleretta to say something? They won't even breath unless Fellay and Rostand tells them its okay! Are you waiting for Fellay to admit that Jorge's a joke? Fellay , Krah, Lorans, Schmidberger, Anglais and Co. are all trying to crawl into the sodomite den in Rome-- you really expect any of them to tell you the truth about Mr. "The carnival is over" Jorge?

And Soul Guard, I also will pray for you. A poster above wished you well on your efforts to become a religious. Well, I'll pray you find another vocation to enter.The last thing tradition needs
is another blindly obedient,"this is Felay's church," weak willed, uninformed, definitely confused, vacillating , easy to manipulate religious. Look what Fellay has done to the Benedictines and Dominicans! You want to be abused like that?

Please read "I Accuse the Council!" Read "A Letter to Confused Catholics!"Read the "Impossible Reconciliation"! Read "Good Bye, Good Men", read "Spiritual Journey"! Read anything from Father
Patrick Girouard in Canada! If you still want to be a brother, get in touch with the Resistance monastery in South America, or Bishop Morello in Argentina.

soulguard · « **Reply #27 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:21:35 AM »

Quote from: soulguard

I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him. Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.

The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.

Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.

I got 5 thumbs downs for this and no thumbs up even though what i said is the SSPX position and this is an SSPX forum.

Basically I dont know if I can say that the man that people who profess to be Catholic say is the pope is not the pope because I am a lay man. How am I supposed to know? I just go to the SSPX for sacraments and mass and i dropped the SV position because it was a division between me and the other trad catholics in the church. There is no SSPV or CMRI in this country. I think to just stay outside of the pope anti-pope debates in the future, until I learn more. I would appreciate if someone posted a good Ebook that i can download on this subject.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #28 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:37:15 AM »

Quote from: soulguard

I got 5 thumbs downs for this and no thumbs up even though what i said is the SSPX position and this is an SSPX forum.

Yes, I thought that was interesting. I think it reflects what Bishop Williamson brought up in some recent ECs, about new life being breathed into the sedevacantist debate. Dismantling the cardboard pope (Ratzinger) seems to have had that effect. Also, your OP received an even 50/50 split of thumbs up and thumbs down. Evidently, people are beginning to leave aside those ridiculous notions expressed by user "rlee" that the sedevacantist opinion is a heresy. On the contrary, it would seem that more and more people are persuaded by it, or at least no longer convinced that it's wrong.

Now, this comment:

Quote

Basically I dont know if I can say that the man that people who profess to be Catholic say is the pope is not the pope because I am a lay man.

Is not the same as this comment:

Quote

How am I supposed to know?

The first comment is an appeal to authority (i.e., "who am I to say? I'm just a layman") and the second comment is about private judgements. As a layman, you are not only entitled but obliged to make private judgements based on the evidence available to you. You do this any time you go to mass-- is the priest valid? You make a judgement and proceed accordingly. Is the priest Catholic, and is the liturgy Catholic? You make a judgement and proceed accordingly. Look at Francis. Is the man pope? Make a judgement and proceed accordingly. If you doubt that he is pope (Archbishop Lefebvre's "main" position, from what I can tell) then you are justified in resisting him.

Quote

I just go to the SSPX for sacraments and mass and i dropped the SV position because it was a division between me and the other trad catholics in the church.

How?

Quote

There is no SSPV or CMRI in this country. I think to just stay outside of the pope anti-pope debates in the future, until I learn more. I would appreciate if someone posted a good Ebook that i can download on this subject.

That is a humble and laudable approach. Do not think you must accept the crisis position of the group you attend mass with. This is religion, not politics.

Go to strobertbellarmine.net

Zeitun · « **Reply #29 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:49:45 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The first comment is an appeal to authority (i.e., "who am I to say? I'm just a layman") and the second comment is about private judgements. As a layman, you are not only entitled but obliged to make private judgements based on the evidence available to you. You do this any time you go to mass-- is the priest valid? You make a judgement and proceed accordingly. Is the priest Catholic, and is the liturgy Catholic? You make a judgement and proceed accordingly. Look at Francis. Is the man pope? Make a judgement and proceed accordingly. If you doubt that he is pope (Archbishop Lefebvre's "main" position, from what I can tell) then you are justified in resisting him.

This is the first time I've heard this. Can you direct me to a catechism or magisterial teaching on the obligation of laity to discern the validity of the clergy?

Thanks.